Invasive Diffusion: one unwilling illustrator found her turned into an AI model

Re:Invasive Diffusion: one unwilling illustrator found her t... by Gigachad on Tuesday November 01, 2022 @11:10PM (#33431021)

I think the problem is ethics models kind of fall apart here. You can trivially make an argument both for and against this on the grounds of ethics. Legally it seems pretty clear nothing wrong is being done here. A human can train on a particular artists style and lift it just fine. Which they regularly do. We just made it way way easier now.

So sure, we can empathize with someone feeling kind of off about the situation. But at the same time its kind of eh, that's how the world is.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Invasive Diffusion: one unwilling illustrator found her t... by yoz-y on Wednesday November 02, 2022 @06:55AM (#33433846)

> Legally it seems pretty clear nothing wrong is being done here.

It most certainly doesn’t. Just because a human can eyeball an art style and copy it eventually, does not translate into “I can take your copyrighted work and feed it to a machine”. Ethically you may argue one way or the other, but legally you are using somebody’s else’s work without permission.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Invasive Diffusion: one unwilling illustrator found her t... by LordDragonfang on Wednesday November 02, 2022 @12:52PM (#33438929)

The machine in question is the human brain.

And besides, there's nothing illegal about "using" a copyrighted work without permission (for example, if artist wanted to use the pixel values in an image for a color pallet, that's totally fine), only reproducing it - which no image generation model does.

[ Parent | on HN ]